Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2011 Moderators Posted July 27, 2011 How can you explain Matt. 28: 19 in a way that makes this verse refer to only two persons and not to three? The Greek construction can only be understood to be referring to three distinct persons. Originally Posted By: Qinael The verse can only be understood to be referring to three distinct nouns; "persons" is not implied anywhere in the text that I can find. Were I to conclude such, I would also have to conclude based on 1 John 5:8 that the water and the blood are people, given the identical construction. 1 John 5: 8 proves that it is speaking of three separate and distinct nouns. In other words, the Spirit is not the blood, nor is the water either the blood or the Spirit. We know that neither water nor blood are persons. In the case of Matt. 28: 19, we have the names of persons. And the construction proves that the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. It is proof that they are distinct and separate entities. Since the Father is a divine person, and the Son is a divine person, the Holy Spirit must also be a divine person. And in fact, this conclusion is supported by many verses in the Bible. It would be completely different if the Bible did not support the view that the Holy Spirit is a person. But the Bible evidence does indeed support the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a divine person, the same as the two previous named persons, the Father and the Son. Matt. 28: 19 clearly teaches that these three entitites have a single "name." What is this name? Under what "name" are Christians to be baptized? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2011 Moderators Posted July 27, 2011 How can you explain Matt. 28: 19 in a way that makes this verse refer to only two persons and not to three? The Greek construction can only be understood to be referring to three distinct persons. Originally Posted By: Qinael That it says "name" (singular) is further a point worth examining, as it does not, and could not, say "names." Why could it not? In fact, wouldn't it be grammatically correct to say "names" here, since there follows three different and distinct names? Again, what is the "name" being referred to in Matt. 28: 19? WE know that these three are "one." These three divine persons are "one God." See Deut. 6: 4 and Eph. 3: 6 Originally Posted By: Qinael What the passage is saying is to baptize in the name, the cause, the purpose of the Father, Son, and Spirit. We see in Acts the apostles followed this by baptizing in the name of Jesus alone, with the Spirit only being mentioned as the gift that comes after the baptism, and the Father not mentioned at all. (Acts 2:28) Here's Acts 2: 28-- 2:28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. "Baptize in the name of" means "in the authority of." In whose authority are Christians baptized? Aren't we baptized in the authority of God? All three of the divine Persons named in this verse are God. God is One, not one in Person, but One in nature, character, and purpose. Therefore, since God is One, when people are baptized in the name of Jesus (or in the authority of Jesus), they are necessarily being baptized in the authority of the One God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I'd like to ask you if you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It's likely that Acts 2: 38 is not to be understood as the quotation of the exact wording of the person baptizing believers. In Acts 16: 33, we're told the jailer and his family were baptized, but if we go by this verse alone, we might think the jailer was not baptized in a name at all. It's best to go by the words of Jesus, which, as you know, are, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." We know He was right. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2011 Moderators Posted July 27, 2011 Please consider the following biblical evidence in regard to the Holy Spirit. I believe the Bible evidence as well as the writings of Ellen White show clearly that the Holy Spirit is a separate, distinct, intelligent Being, yet One with the single Godhead. Here are some of my reasons for believing this: 1) Though the word "pneuma" ["Spirit"] is a naturally occurring Greek neuter noun, yet the masculine pronoun "ekeinos" ["that one," "that," "this," "he,"] is used of the Holy Spirit in John 16: 14. 2) In many Greek text, "hos" ["which," "the one which"], a masculine relative pronoun, is used in Eph. 1: 14 to refer to the Holy Spirit. In fact, this is the reading of the vast majority of Greek texts, in addition to the witness of Codices Sinaiticus and "D". 3) The Holy Spirit is called the "paraclete" [ Gk Parakletos]-- the Comforter or Advocate (John 14: 26; 15: 26; 16:7). This is yet another indication, not only of His personality but of His personhood. The Greek word "parakletos" cannot be translated by "comfort," or be regarded as the name of any abstract influence. It has to refer to a distinct person. Another indication that a person is meant, is the fact that the Holy Spirit as Comforter is placed in juxtaposition with Christ as the Comforter about to depart, to whom the same term is applied in 1 John 2: 1. 4) The characteristics of a person are ascribed to Him, such as intelligence (John 14: 26; 15: 26; Romans 8: 16). 5) The fact that He has a will is another important characteristic of His Personhood (Acts 16: 7; 1 Cor. 12: 11). 6) Yet another characteristic of this Divine Person are His affections (Is. 63: 10; Eph. 4: 30). 7) He performs the distinct acts of a person. He searches, speaks, testifies, commands, reveals, strives, creates, makes intercession, raises the dead, etc. (Gen. 1: 2; 6: 3; Luke 12: 12; John 14: 26; 15: 26; 16: 8; Acts 8: 29; 13: 2; Rom 8: 11; 1 Cor. 2: 10-10). Could anyone but a definite person do all of these things? How could these things be done by a mere power or influence. 8) The Holy Spirit stands in such a relationship to other persons, that His own personality and Personhood are implied. He is placed in juxtaposition with the apostles (Acts 15: 28), with Christ (John 16: 14), and with the Father and the Son (Matt. 28: 19; 2 Cor. 13: 13; 1 Peter 1: 1-2; Jude 20, 21). 9) There are also passages of Scripture in which the Holy Spirit is distinguished as a person apart from His own power (Luke 1: 35; 4: 14; Acts 10: 38; Rom. 15: 13; 1 Cor. 2: 4). Yet such passages would become redundant, meaningless, and even absurd, if they were explained as indicating that the Holy Spirit were merely a "power" or inanimate force. In the above quoted passages, substitute the word "power" or "influence" for the name "Holy Spirit-- and see how ridiculous the sentences become! 10) The Deity of the Holy Spirit is indicated by several factors, one of which is that Divine names are given to Him (Exodus 17: 7 [compare Heb. 3: 7-9]; Acts 5: 3-4; 1 Cor. 3: 16; 1 Tim. 3: 16 [Compare 2 Peter 1: 21]). 11) The Holy Spirit also has the attributes of the Godhead. One example is His omniscience (Is. 40: 13-14). He has fullest knowledge. Hence He is able to guide people into "all truth" (John 16: 13). Continued Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 27, 2011 Moderators Posted July 27, 2011 Continued 12) Some say that the descriptions of the Personality of the Holy Spirit in the NT are only personifications. But such an explanation would clearly destroy the meaning of such passages as John 14: 26; 16: 7-11; Romans 8: 26. 13) The Holy Spirit is eternal (Heb. 9: 14). 14) The Holy Spirit does divine works, such as creation (Gen. 1: 2; Job 26: 13; 33: 4). 15) The Holy Spirit can create or restore (Ps. 104: 30). 16) The Holy Spirit can regenerate men: work in them the New Birth (John 3: 5-6; Titus 3: 5). 17) The Holy Spirit can raise the deaed (Rom. 8: 11). 18) As with Christ, divine honor is ascribed to the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28: 19; Romans 9: 1; 2 Cor. 13: 13). 19) The Holy Spirit both inspires and enables men to do the tasks assigned to them (Ex. 28: 3; 31: 2-3, 6; 35: 35; 1 Sam 11: 6; 16: 13-14.) Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Light Fox Posted July 27, 2011 Author Posted July 27, 2011 Originally Posted By: Qinael What the passage is saying is to baptize in the name, the cause, the purpose of the Father, Son, and Spirit. We see in Acts the apostles followed this by baptizing in the name of Jesus alone, with the Spirit only being mentioned as the gift that comes after the baptism, and the Father not mentioned at all. (Acts 2:28) Here's Acts 2: 28-- 2:28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. [...] It's likely that Acts 2: 38 is not to be understood as the quotation of the exact wording of the person baptizing believers. John, As you rightly concluded later when speculating that the Scriptures are a paraphrase in various certain places, this was obviously a typo. I meant 2:38, not 2:28. I'm not sure what non-debating motive you would have for quoting 2:28 in full if you knew this, but I apologize for any confusion it may have caused. As far as the rest of your posts, as I've already said more than once, I'm not interested in arguing with you. I am not seeing anything particularly new or convincing in your points, and I see no evidence that you're interested in anything other than trying - for whatever reason - to demonstrate either 'how wrong I am' or 'how right you are' to the watching masses. I do appreciate the Ellen White quote from MYP, however. Thank you for sharing that. Quote www.Adventistry.to/Answers
Moderators John317 Posted July 28, 2011 Moderators Posted July 28, 2011 As far as the rest of your posts, as I've already said more than once, I'm not interested in arguing with you. With regard to your comment that 1 Cor. 12: 11 is a reference to "God" rather than to the Holy Spirit: What noun is the antecedent of the verb bouletai(willing)? Isn't the antecedent the noun, pneuma (Spirit)? Is the participle, diairoun (giving), neuter or masculine? Isn't it neuter? We know that the participle, diairoun, refers to the Spirit and not to the masculine noun, theos, in verse 5. Therefore, the masculine particple, diairoun, can only refer to the masculine noun, pneuma [spirit]. Also, notice that the Spirit is the one who's doing the "working" [Gk energei]. Verse 11 reads, "Yet all these are the work of one and the same Spirit, [and it] gives to each one just as it [the Spirit] wills." Notice how the New Revised Standard Version translates it: "All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses." The above translation is correct and agrees with every reputable commentary and translation of this verse. Therefore it is impossible for "God" of verse 5 to be the one "willing" or "choosing" in verse 11. "God" is masculine and would require the participle and the verb in verse 11 to be also masculine. But the fact that they are neuter and agree with the neuter noun, pneuma (Spirit), proves that it is the Spirit who is doing the "working" and the "willing." PS. Check out the comments in the SDA Bible Commentary on 1 Cor. 12: 11. It agrees with every commentary I've ever read on this verse. It says that it is speaking of the Holy Spirit as the One who "wills" and that it is proof that the Holy Spirit is a person and not a mere influence or abstract power. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 28, 2011 Moderators Posted July 28, 2011 ... I agree that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person "in some sense" - there was a reason Mrs. White used the term "person" on rare occasion after all. Can you show anywhere (apart from her writings on the Holy Spirit, in which she calls the Him "a person" and a "divine person") that Ellen White clearly used "person" when it was not in reference to an actual, complete person? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 28, 2011 Moderators Posted July 28, 2011 Qinael, please see the PM I sent you. Don't argue on the public threads. If you have questions or a personal argument to make, please send them by PM. I'll happily answer any and all questions and discuss anything you feel the need of talking about. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 29, 2011 Moderators Posted July 29, 2011 I think you misunderstood Qinael in this post if you will note the statements of yours and his that I colored red. You asked him to quote where you said the HS is a "power", but in his post he clearly, to me anyway, refers to the quote of Ellen White you had in your post. Ellen White called them "Powers". You'll notice that in my first post to Qinael, to which I assumed he was responding, I hadn't said that the Holy Spirit was a power. That particular post was addressed to Dr. Waite. Since Qinael had asked for responses to him to be only regarding the Bible evidence, I didn't expect him to respond to my quote of Ellen White, and he didn't refer specifically to Ellen White's statement. I was looking for anything in my post to him that referred to the Holy Spirit as "a power." This was only the second post I had written to Qinael. Some people believe that the Holy Spirit is only a "power" and not an actual person, and this is what I thought Qinael might be thinking I had said. Ellen White does say that the Holy Spirit is a power but she leaves no doubt that the Holy Spirit is also a person, just as the Father and the Son are personal and omniscient persons. It's important to notice that Ellen White never merely refers to the Holy Spirit as a power. As in the above quote by Ellen White, she says that all three persons of the Godhead are infinite and omniscient powers. This is one of the points that Qinael is disputing-- that the Holy Spirit is omniscient. He had asked: "How can the Holy Spirit be an omniscient, Divine intelligence given this definitively exclusive statement?" In this, Qinael is in complete disagreement with Ellen White's plain statements on the Holy Spirit. Ellen White is, of course, in harmony with Scripture in what she says about the third person of the Godhead. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 30, 2011 Moderators Posted July 30, 2011 John, Regarding your further 'questions': Originally Posted By: John317 1 Cor. 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing [distributing the spiritual gifts] to every man severally as he will. Doesn't the above verse show clearly the self-determining will of the Holy Spirit? It would seem to imply such if removed from it's proper context. Take note of the beginning of this passage: "And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." (v. 6,7) It then goes on to give examples. God gives the Spirit, which manifests itself in various ways as He [God, the Father] wills. See also verses 18, 24, and 28, and take note of who "God" is in the list given in verses 5-7. It seems very clear to me that it's speaking of the Father here. Other verses bear this out, referring to the Spirit as a "gift" or "good things" given by the Father. (Luke 11:13, Matthew 7:11) There were a few other verses, but I don't see how they implied that the Spirit was speaking of it's own will as opposed to the Spirit speaking the will of the Father and Son that send it. My primary response to this post is found on post #463764 on this discussion. But here are two additional verses which prove that the Holy Spirit has a will: 1) Eph. 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, by whom ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. NOTE: Believers are sealed BY the Holy Spirit. This cannot be true if the Holy Spirit has no will. Also, it shows that the Holy Spirit can be "grieved." No one can "grieve" an abstract power or influence. Only a person can be grieved. 2)2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost. NOTE: It is impossible for the Holy Spirit to move holy men of God if the Holy Spirit has no will of its own. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Dr. Waite Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 John317: you state: "The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative. Christ cannot be personally with all of his followers at the same time, since He is a glorified man and limited voluntarily to a human body. Phil. 2: 7, 8; 1 Tim. 2: 5. He is the God-man, forever a human being, our elder Brother. That was why the Father sent the Holy Spirit to be with us." Christ was NOT a "glorified man" before the world was. Look at John 17:5: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. " What is your explanation of the glory which the Son of God had before the world was? Quote grw
Windsor Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 I believe that Bible verse has been mistranslated among almost every version of the Bible. I'm borrowing the following from a publication by James White: An old English version of the passage reads, "But that day and hour no man maketh known, neither the angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." This is the correct reading, according to several of the ablest critics of the age. The word know is used in the same sense here that it is by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:2: "For I determined not to know (make known) anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Men will not make known the day and hour, angels will not make it known, neither will the Son, but the Father will make it known. [see EGW on this point]. Says Campbell: "Macknight argues that the term known is here used as a causative, in the Hebrew sense of the conjugation hiphil, that is, to make known... His (Christ's) answer is just equivalent to saying, The Father will make it known when it pleases Him, but He has not authorized man, angel, or the Son to make it known. Just in this sense, Paul uses the term know, 1 Cor. 2:2, 'I came to you making known the testimony of God; for I determine to make known nothing among you but a crucified Christ.'" Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Gospels, says: "Others have said that the verb rendered knoweth means to make known, or to reveal, and that the passage means, 'that day and hour none maketh known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.' It is true the word has sometimes that meaning, as 1 Corinthians 2:2." Quote Remember Adventists Online?
Moderators John317 Posted July 30, 2011 Moderators Posted July 30, 2011 I think you make a good point. Jesus is saying, then, that it's in the Father's authority to make known the secrets regarding Christ's return. It isn't a matter of the Father being superior to the Son or to the Holy Spirit, but of the fact that the Father represents the Godhead to the created universe. It is the Father who sends out the Messiah and the Holy Spirit. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 30, 2011 Moderators Posted July 30, 2011 The Holy Spirit is Christ's representative. Christ cannot be personally with all of his followers at the same time, since He is a glorified man and limited voluntarily to a human body. Phil. 2: 7, 8; 1 Tim. 2: 5. He is the God-man, forever a human being, our elder Brother. That was why the Father sent the Holy Spirit to be with us. Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite Christ was NOT a "glorified man" before the world was. No, He wasn't. You're right. Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite Look at John 17:5: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. " What is your explanation of the glory which the Son of God had before the world was? My explanation is that the Son of God has always been equal to the Father, just as John 1: 1 says. "... and the Word was God." "What God was, the Word was" (REB). As Ellen White says, "Christ is the eternal, self-existent Son." In other places, she says Christ is "infinite" and "omnipotant." Elsewhere she says there never was a time when Christ was not in close fellowship with the eternal God. Since God the Father is God from everlasting to everlasting and has no beginning, it means the infinite, self-existent Son is also without beginning. If not, how can it be said that the Son has always been in close fellowship with the eternal God? And how can we say the Son is "self-existent," "infinite" and "eternal" if there was time when He was not? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Dr. Waite Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 John: You state: "My explanation is that the Son of God has always been equal to the Father, just as John 1: 1 says. "... and the Word was God." "What God was, the Word was" (REB)." John 1:1 says that there was a beginning when the Word was God and Hebrews 1:4 says: "Being made so much better than the angels as he had by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they and Matthew 19:18 says "All power is given unto me" and John 5:26 says "For as the Father hath life in himself; so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself" If the Son of God has always been equal to the Father and has always existed without a beginning, then why does John 1:1 mention a "beginning" and Hebrews 1:4 mention "being made" and why does Matthew 19:18 mention "all power is given" and why does John 5:26 mention the Son being given to have life in himself? Quote grw
teresaq Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 I believe that Bible verse has been mistranslated among almost every version of the Bible. I'm borrowing the following from a publication by James White: An old English version of the passage reads, "But that day and hour no man maketh known, neither the angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." This is the correct reading, according to several of the ablest critics of the age. The word know is used in the same sense here that it is by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2:2: "For I determined not to know (make known) anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified." Men will not make known the day and hour, angels will not make it known, neither will the Son, but the Father will make it known. [see EGW on this point]. Says Campbell: "Macknight argues that the term known is here used as a causative, in the Hebrew sense of the conjugation hiphil, that is, to make known... His (Christ's) answer is just equivalent to saying, The Father will make it known when it pleases Him, but He has not authorized man, angel, or the Son to make it known. Just in this sense, Paul uses the term know, 1 Cor. 2:2, 'I came to you making known the testimony of God; for I determine to make known nothing among you but a crucified Christ.'" Albert Barnes, in his Notes on the Gospels, says: "Others have said that the verb rendered knoweth means to make known, or to reveal, and that the passage means, 'that day and hour none maketh known, neither the angels, nor the Son, but the Father.' It is true the word has sometimes that meaning, as 1 Corinthians 2:2." Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
teresaq Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 ... Matthew 24:36. How much longer will the ludicrous supposition that Jesus (and therefore also the Holy Spirit) doesn't know the time of His own return continue? If I understand you correctly you see those translations as saying Jesus does know when He will return-and by extension the HS also? Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Moderators John317 Posted July 31, 2011 Moderators Posted July 31, 2011 John 1:1 says that there was a beginning when the Word was God John 1: 1 is not saying that "The Word of God had a beginning." The phrase, "the Word was," has a verb that is imperfect active indicative. The imperfect expresses action as going on in past time. In John 1: 1, it indicates linear or progessive action that was going on in the past time. It has no beginning point. It is saying that "In the beginning the Word of God already existed." Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite and Hebrews 1:4 says: "Being made so much better than the angels as he had by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they The verb is ginomai and is a participle aorist middle nominative singular masculine. It is translated "having become" and refers to Christ after the incarnation. Verse 3 says that Christ sat down with the Father on His throne, and then follows verse 4. Notice the same progression in Phil. 2: 6- 9: 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite and Matthew 19:18 says "All power is given unto me" As the God-man, Christ depended on the Father for all things. Christ already had all power prior to His coming to earth as a man, but as a man, he was dependent on the Father. See Desire of Ages on these verses. Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite and John 5:26 says "For as the Father hath life in himself; so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself" John 1: 4 says that prior to coming to the earth as a human being, Christ had life in Him already. John 5: 26 is talking from the viewpoint of Christ's manhood. Again, Christ as a man was dependent on the Father. He said, "Of my self, I can do nothing." Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite If the Son of God has always been equal to the Father and has always existed without a beginning, then why does John 1:1 mention a "beginning" Does it say that the Word of God had a beginning? Does it say that there was a time when the Word did not exist? Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite and Hebrews 1:4 mention "being made" This word doesn't mean being created. It means the same thing as we find in Phil. 2: 8, 9. Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite and why does Matthew 19:18 mention "all power is given" Because as a man Christ was dependent upon the Father for everything. Originally Posted By: Dr. Waite and why does John 5:26 mention the Son being given to have life in himself? Again, because Christ as a human being-- as a Son-- was dependent in all things on the Father. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Windsor Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Originally Posted By: Windsor ... Matthew 24:36. How much longer will the ludicrous supposition that Jesus (and therefore also the Holy Spirit) doesn't know the time of His own return continue? If I understand you correctly you see those translations as saying Jesus does know when He will return-and by extension the HS also? Bingo! Quote Remember Adventists Online?
teresaq Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 OK, I don't have a problem with that. ... Matthew 24:36. How much longer will the ludicrous supposition that Jesus (and therefore also the Holy Spirit) doesn't know the time of His own return continue? Quote facebook. /teresa.quintero.790
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.